U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2016, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
16,461 posts, read 19,996,430 times
Reputation: 22367

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Cato Institute - SourceWatch

"Alliance with the Tobacco Industry
The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of 'national allies,' including a 1999 'Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook' and a less-specific 2000 list of 'National Allies.'
R.J. Reynolds (RJR) also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry 'shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future.' In the September 2000 document, titled 'Reframing the Debate Communications Plan,' RJR states, 'Work with CATO Institute ... to empanel a group to debate legality and future management of cigarette industry. Open forum to media (pitch C- SPAN coverage); issue press release and transcript of remarks to media not in attendance.' A subsequent part of the plan says RJR could help sustain public interest in their points of view by encouraging Cato Institute to send [pro-tobacco] columns to the national media."

Oh, and by the way, second hand smoke kills.
Scientists can be far more corrupt than politicians! Intelligently, I don't trust any of them, particularly those involved in the caffeine industry!

You're a scientist, this company is paying you $100k a year, and you know the products they're making have their dangers/risks. But you don't want to lose your high-paying job, and so you're ordered to come up with some scientific research showing their products are safe, the best! If not, you're fired!

 
Old 07-06-2016, 07:38 AM
 
847 posts, read 444,139 times
Reputation: 3238
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I'm sure some people use patches but they don't help everyone who is trying to quit. E-cigs aren't dangerous, the pharmaceutical industry has been trying to get control over the production and distribution of them (via prescription) for years, they are the ones making claims that they are unsafe, but think about what they are. A battery heats a small coil which vaporizes the liquid (not smoke). The liquid is composed of vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol (not ethylene glycol which is anti-freeze). Propylene glycol has been used for 50 years in nebulizers (medical inhalers for asthma). The liquid in an e-cig probably has nicotine but not all e-cig users use nicotine. They also usually contain food flavorings, the same grade that are added to cupcakes and other foods.

A user inhales the vapor and it simulates smoking and apparently for many people that is enough to wean them off cigarettes, but for those who can't quit the e-cig it is infinitely safer than a traditional cigarette. In Great Britain the Royal College of Physicians recommends that smokers switch from traditional cigarettes to e-cigs. Unfortunately the FDA yielded to the pressure of big pharma and tobacco companies and made no such recommendation.
My family were always huge smokers and many have quit but several just can't quit for good.

E cigs helped several quit for good. I know they get a bad reputation but you can adjust the nicotine-level "juice" and slowly wean yourself off. My aunt got a doctor's report to quit or die. She has tried everything else (gum, patch, hypnosis, cold-turkey) but not e cigs and we are trying to convince her to try them. Even if she continues to use those it's way better than her 3 packs a day regular habit. After watching my uncle suffocate to death from COPD it's so hard to watch a loved one continue smoking.
 
Old 07-06-2016, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,477 posts, read 26,078,274 times
Reputation: 26426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robino1 View Post
From your first link:

"So does secondhand smoke cause lung cancer or not? 'We canít say itís not a risk factor,' said Wang."

"WHI-OS had only 901 cases of lung cancer, and only 152 of those occurred in never-smokers. 'Itís hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers,' said Wakelee."

"Asked whether a waitress who spent 15 years working in a smoky bar should feel reassured, Wakelee said, 'Certainly, if you look just at this study and ignore other data. But you canít really ignore all the other data or ignore all the health risks linked to that exposure'Ē


The preponderance of the evidence supports increased mortality in people exposed to second hand smoke. It's not just lung cancer. A large meta-analysis:

Risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease associated with secondhand smoke exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

"Exposure to SHS significantly increased the risk for all-cause mortality and CVD. The risk associated with SHS exposure was large in China while the risk was only modest in the US. Studies using objectively measured SHS exposure may yield a higher risk of CVD than those using self-reported SHS exposure."

Simpson just wants to justify his own smoking and pretend his cigar smoking will not hurt anyone else.
 
Old 07-06-2016, 09:25 AM
 
8,305 posts, read 8,577,591 times
Reputation: 25923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robino1 View Post
No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer

Smoking and Your Health | Dr Terry Simpson

Second hand smoke Does. Not. Kill.

Thank you for drinking the kool-aid.

I am a former smoker. I bought into the myths and outright lies. I quit smoking almost 4 years ago. I've since spent years reading and doing my own research, following links to studies in articles, to try to discover the truth.

Truth: there are those that have a beef with smoking, be it because it stinks, someone had soneone die from a smoking related illness... Whatever their reasoning... They wish All tobacco use (blanketing nicotine use in with that) go away.

I realize that I cannot change the minds of those that have been thoroughly brainwashed.


I'm sorry to the OP for absolutely taking your thread off topic (kinda sorta). Please have her look into e-cigarettes. If she can find a device that fits her, it can help her quit smoking....if she is ready.

Good luck
The American Cancer Society does believe there is a link between second hand smoke and lung cancer as well as many other cancers. I find the ACS a better source than what you have provided. So has the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Ange Wang from the first article you link too says "we can't say second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer".



Health Risks of Secondhand Smoke


http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/c...oke-fact-sheet

Last edited by markg91359; 07-06-2016 at 09:59 AM..
 
Old 07-06-2016, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
154 posts, read 87,086 times
Reputation: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
If she wants to cut down, there are a few things she can do.
Good ideas. One thing that helped my wife and me was a simple rule: no smoking in the house. Whatever you think of smoking, it's pretty disgusting what smoke does to walls, heating ducts, etc. I once had to pull the fan out of our furnace -- it had so much cigarette tar on it, all the dust it was collecting caused it to run out of balance. Ew.

The next rule was no smoking in the car. We cut our smoking by two thirds with those two (down to a half pack a day). Finally quit 3+ years ago and never really looked back.
 
Old 07-06-2016, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Has anyone else noticed that the OP hasn't responded to any of the comments made on his thread? I wonder why that is? He joins up, makes one post on the same day as joining, and then disappears--even before the SHTF. Hm....why does this feel orchestrated? Why can I see something like that happening here?
 
Old 07-06-2016, 11:43 AM
bg7
 
7,698 posts, read 7,627,262 times
Reputation: 14991
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
It's "magical thinking" to think that pesticides are better than organic tobacco. It's "wishful thinking" to think that smoking pre-rolled cigs with hundreds of chemicals added isn't worse than straight tobacco. Our ancestors have smoked the tobacco plant for millennia. To think that the current ways of producing tobacco products aren't harmful is "magical thinking".

Yes, this is true. I do NOT advocate smoking. I DO advocate switching to a safer tobacco if you do not want to quit smoking. It *is* safer to roll your own with organic tobacco than it is to smoke pre-rolled cigs--regardless of what some internet article tells you.


"Straight tobacco" naturally contains hundreds of chemicals. You are talking about added synthetic chemicals. But to the body, its immaterial whether they are man made or occur naturally in nature. All that's material is whether the specific chemical is harmful. Some of the most dangerous substances in the world are entirely natural, and a lot of those dangerous ones come from plants.


I'd also be very wary about claiming our ancestors were unharmed by smoking tobacco. Firstly, there is no evidence that they smoked it at the regularity and extent of current day users. Secondly, since the average age lung cancer is diagnosed is in the 60s, and the life expectancy of our ancestors was far less than that, there's no reason to believe it would have shown up.


You are engaging in magical thinking based on the magic idea that "natural is safer than synthetic"
Its not an inviolable rule - the examples go both ways.


What is true is that our lungs did not evolve to deal with air contaminated with such high concentrations of hydrocarbon chemicals. So if you are going to use marijuana - its likely a safer bet to use vaping than pure combustion which releases more hydrocarbons.
 
Old 07-06-2016, 11:46 AM
 
4,903 posts, read 2,513,517 times
Reputation: 4379
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Is jumping out of an airplane without a parachute "safer" at 5000 feet than at 15000 feet?

Organic tobacco can kill you. No additives needed. The carcinogens are in the plant or produced during curing or burning the tobacco.
smokers don't want to hear that they're expediting their own deaths. just like alcoholics don't want to hear that they shouldn't drink and drive.
 
Old 07-06-2016, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7 View Post
"Straight tobacco" naturally contains hundreds of chemicals. You are talking about added synthetic chemicals. But to the body, its immaterial whether they are man made or occur naturally in nature. All that's material is whether the specific chemical is harmful. Some of the most dangerous substances in the world are entirely natural, and a lot of those dangerous ones come from plants.


I'd also be very wary about claiming our ancestors were unharmed by smoking tobacco. Firstly, there is no evidence that they smoked it at the regularity and extent of current day users. Secondly, since the average age lung cancer is diagnosed is in the 60s, and the life expectancy of our ancestors was far less than that, there's no reason to believe it would have shown up.


You are engaging in magical thinking based on the magic idea that "natural is safer than synthetic"
Its not an inviolable rule - the examples go both ways.


What is true is that our lungs did not evolve to deal with air contaminated with such high concentrations of hydrocarbon chemicals. So if you are going to use marijuana - its likely a safer bet to use vaping than pure combustion which releases more hydrocarbons.
Whatever. I'm not going to get into this debate any longer. If people don't realize that the synthetic pesticides and chemical additives are just adding fuel to the fire unnecessarily, then that's their problem. Do some research on the pesticides being used and ask yourself if adding that to the inherent "dangers" of tobacco combustion is a good thing or not. Look at the hundreds of additives in pre-rolled cigs and ponder on the effects of some of them.

Pharmacological and Chemical Effects of Cigarette Additives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_cigarettes
 
Old 07-06-2016, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by northeastah View Post
smokers don't want to hear that they're expediting their own deaths. Just like alcoholics don't want to hear that they shouldn't drink and drive.
roflmao
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top